Bill, my assumption at this point is that Studio is unsuitable for my needs, and that an IPN file will work better, but I appreciate your reply. I'll see if I can scan and supply some of the photographic storyboards created by the shop foreman, but they're on big pieces of cardboard right now.
Some thoughts in response to yours:
The lack of documentation is a big handicap to me (especially the lack of printed--or even printable--documentation). Online help files don't serve the same purpose. However, I figured out, eventually, that Studio is for showing things moving along their constraints, and the word "animation" doesn't really apply in its usual sense. So I think in large part, I've been trying to get a dog to bark like a cat.
I haven't tried using a wrapper assembly, but the removal of constraints won't quite accomplish what I need.
Some background that might help clarify my needs: I'm the graphic design department here, and in addition to Quark/Illustrator/Photoshop, I have a film/video/audio background, so my client figures I can do this for them, and they can get my film/video skills at Quark/Illustrator prices (which is fine by me). However, I'm not the one making the models, and I'm not an Inventor guy in the first place. (And I was a victim of the Inventor-to-Viz plugin that didn't work, so I've admittedly got a chip on my shoulder regarding Autodesk in the first place.)
I assume I need constraints so that I have the basic information of "Where does this part go?" at hand. However, that puts me into dilemma territory: Without the constraints, I can move the parts but don't know where to put them, and with them, I know where to put them but can't move them there. Suppressing them as needed is a possible--if awkward--solution, but then I bump into the fact that I can't alter their paths,so they often move through each other in physically impossible and visually confusing ways.
Controlling the start position of a component in Assembly makes sense for the needs of a mechanical designer (i.e., showing the gears turning and the parts moving), but is awkward for what I'm trying to do. I want to tell the program that at THIS keyframe, the part is HERE, and that THAT keyframe, it's THERE. Again, the lack of documentation made it a very frustrating experience, trying to figure out exactly what the hell was being edited when I right-clicked a track in the Action Editor and chose EDIT. My assumptions got in the way: I assumed the existence of a keyframe on a track meant that keyframe contained something. But it doesn't. That being the case, I'd suggest not showing a white box on the left of the blue bar, as it's visually misleading. Just show the blue bar starting, and then show it ending in a box on the right.
I'd also appreciate a chart or something that shows me what Studio does, as opposed to the IPN and MAX options.
Which brings me back to something I've brought up twice already:
DOCUMENTATION!
The online help files are not helpful unless you already know the program--at least, that's my experience. I NEED A MANUAL! I'll print PDFs if I have to, but... NO manual AT ALL? What is this, Customer Depreciation Day?
If my experience with other companies holds true here, you already know a manual is a necessity, but your management decided to leave it out in order to save money. So I'm not yelling at you guys who do the actual work, and who pop up in the forums and help people--but yes, I'm definitely yelling at management, so please feel free to forward this up the chain. Software--ANY software, even software less complex than this--needs manuals, and the decision to omit them is evidence of a profound lack of customer care. Manuals are not mere niceties.
I hope you take this as I intended it, which is not a slap in your face at all; I really appreciate your taking the time to respond, and look forward to continuing the discussion--hopefully in a way that lets me get this project done as efficiently as possible.
